Highest-Ranking Elected Atheist Announced
You may recall that a while back, the Secular Coalition for America ran a contest to find the highest-ranking elected
atheist
[1]
in the U.S. Government. Now the contest has ended and
the results have been announced.
The highest-ranking, elected, openly nontheist member of government turns out to be representative Pete Stark (D-CA-13). Dang! My money was on Rick Santorum. (One comment at Woknette says, “he’s a Unitarian, not a full blown Atheist”. The two are not mutually exclusive. See footnote 1.)
So what does this mean? I’m not sure. On one hand the common complaint that “you can’t get elected in this country if you’re an atheist” just got weakened. Yes, I’m sure there are plenty of closet atheists in Congress and in lower elected positions, but Stark is openly atheist. So at the very least, that complaint has to be amended to “you can’t get elected in this country if you’re openly an atheist.”
Of course, I don’t know whether Stark’s views were common knowledge in the past. I guess we’ll see whether he gets reelected. And at the very least, the fact that he’s the only member of congress willing to identify himself as godless means that it’s still very hard for an open atheist to be elected, so the first version of the complaint is still mostly true.
Still, one is better than zero, and maybe there’ll be others in the future. I’m not terribly optimistic, but one can hope. After all, if we have to retire the complaint because it’s out of date, so much the better.
[1] I’m using the broadest definition here. If you make a list of everything you believe, and that list does not include “there is a god”, then you’re an atheist.
Rather a long discussion to end with a footnote that the words you’re using are being defined to mean something different than their customary meaning. You might as well claim that everyone who leaves out “there is no god” is a theist. Of course, why am I arguing with a flat-earther[1].
[1]Using the definition here that everyone who doesn’t believe that the earth is a perfect sphere is a flat-earther!
Paul:
WTF? I’m using a standard definition. I even included a link for further information.
If your dictionary says that “atheist” is synonymous with “antitheist” or “satanist” or some such, then I’m sorry, but your dictionary is broken.
I realize it’s big in the atheist community to try to claim agnostics in their group, but Iron Chariots is a pretty bizarre thing to quote as an “authority.” You know full well that I’m not claiming that atheist is “satanism” or even “antitheism”; the definition of “strong atheism” is atheism, and the definition of weak atheism is not. However, in describing a person as atheist, it’s perfectly appropriate to call a person an atheist if they self-describe. To declare that all the people who would call themselves agnostics are really atheists is just silly.
And wtf are you doing up this early?
Paul:
Actually, I hadn’t noticed that you were that Paul. Sorry, but given some of the people who have been commenting here lately, no, I couldn’t know what you meant.
Then I’m going to take issue with you. An atheist is someone who lacks belief in any gods, period. What do you call such people?
I’ve always found it interesting that people draw a distinction between “strong” and “weak” atheism. I really don’t think there’s much of a difference. I don’t buy the claim that the lack of belief in a god is significantly different from a belief in the lack of a god, provided that the belief is reasonably provisional. Even the “strongest” atheist would probably change his tune if a god appeared in front of him and started tearing the place up and smiting people and whatnot. Most people regard Richard Dawkins as a “strong” atheist, but he has said repeatedly that if a pile of evidence in favor of a god became available, he would change his position.
How “strong” does one’s lack of belief have to be in order to qualify? Where’s the distinction between not believing in gods and really not believing in gods?
I like the real time preview thing. Pretty snazzy.
Troublesome Frog:
True. Just about every atheist I’ve met is of the weak, i.e., “sure, I’ll believe as soon as you show me a god” variety. I don’t think I’ve met anyone who takes it as an article of faith that there are no gods. I suspect that while there are probably a few strong atheists out there, they exist primarily as straw men for theists who can’t imagine someone not having anything to take the place of a god-belief.
Paul:
Just in case I was wrong, I decided to check. Merriam-Webster defines atheism as:
I’m not sure how “disbelief” works in the distinction between strong and weak atheism, though I think it’s closer to strong.
The OED says:
Again, I’m not sure this really distinguishes between weak and strong atheism, though I’ll accept that it leans more toward strong.
alt.atheism used to have a good FAQ, but apparently it has disappeared. The best thing I could find with Google and the Wayback Machine was this, which says:
Over at the Internet Infidels, the article The Meaning of Atheism by E. Haldeman-Julius begins with:
I take this to be synonymous with my definition, the one that includes weak atheists.
Also at Internet Infidels, More on Definitions of Atheism by mathew complains about dictionary definitions, and goes on to say that atheists define atheism as lack of belief in a god or gods.
Austin Cline, at about.com, writes:
Defining Atheism at Positive Atheism begins:
At the same site, the Introduction To Activistic Atheism FAQ says:
The lone voice of dissent (aside from dictionary definitions above) comes from evilbible.org:
So I think my definition is defensible.
Well, I thought your thought experiment was a valid way to go about it.
If on the list of your beliefs, there is a statement “there is a god/gods” then you are a theist.
If on the list of your beliefs, there is a statement, “there are no gods” then you are an atheist. (Websters and the OED’s “disbelief, denial, the doctrine that there is no god”)
If neither such statement appears on your list of beliefs, then you are an agnostic. (I’m sure there’s some third statement that would place you some place else somehow– but the first two are clear.)
I’m perfectly willling to agree that someone as a an atheist (or theist) if someone would change their belief system based on more evidence, but I think that’s a tangent.
It seems to be that the conventional authorities back my notion that the word is customarily used as I describe it above, and the internet sources you quote, rather than qualifying as a competing authority, just back up my comment that there’s a movement afoot to try to redefine the word. I’ve nothing against the fact that words change definitions over time, and I suppose if you intended your post to be read entirely by the people who have already agreed on a redefinition I should just be quiet and let you carry on. I think you have a wider audience, though. 😉
It’s worth noting here that the antecedents of the word atheism were used to describe Christians. Since they denied the existence of the gods of the Roman state, they were seen as god-deniers, and therefore atheists. In short, the word has already gone through something of a shift in meaning.
Paul:
The thing is, no one has given any thought to the vast majority of possible statements. For instance, I bet the list of your beliefs does not contain “there are flying unicorns on Uranus”. By your criterion, that makes you unicorn-agnostic.
I see this as a problem because it tends to imply that you think that flying unicorns on Uranus are a real possibility, even though — now that you’ve had a chance to give it a second’s thought — the idea is quite absurd. Presumably if you were shown evidence of such unicorns you’d change your mind, but in the meantime, you’re 99.999…% sure that such unicorns don’t exist (rounding up to “there are no flying unicorns on Uranus” for purposes of conversation), and will continue to live your life as though they didn’t exist. That is, now that you are an a-unicornist, you behave exactly as you did when you were a unicorn-agnostic, but quite differently from some woo-woo who lobbies NASA to send a probe to Uranus to see whether there are flying unicorns there.
There’s also the eternal problem that “agnostic” has many meanings, including “someone who isn’t sure whether there’s a god”, “someone who thinks that the existence of God cannot be demonstrated”, and
is a dirty word.There’s also the question of likelihoods: if someone thinks that the existence of God has a 50% probability, that makes him an agnostic by the most common definition. What about 75%? 90%? 99.99999%? Where can a line reasonably be drawn?
Perhaps a simpler test is in order: ask someone if they believe that a god or gods exist, and if they say “no” (or close enough that they’re not hedging their bets), they’re atheists for practical purposes.
But that’s exactly what I hear from most self-described atheists (and it’s mine as well): “I see no good evidence for the existence of any gods. But show me some, and I’ll change my mind.”
I disagree. It seems to be more a case where dictionaries give a reasonably good definition of a term for the general public, but people interested in a topic have a different one. This is certainly the case for “evolution”, and I would expect it to be true for “jurisprudence”, “state of grace”, and “baroque music” as well.
That’s nice 🙂
My problem with the line people generally try to draw between “agnostic” and “atheist” is that there is little (or no) practical difference between the two in most cases, and it allows people to make statements that amount to, “Oh, I’m a reasonable person because I’m agnostic. Those atheists are just crazy folk! Atheism is just another religion.”
Frankly, I see “agnostic” as a nearly useless term that adds unnecessary weight to a distinction that’s minimal in the most extreme cases and non-existent in just about any practical situation. There are very few people who, in reality, take the non-existence of gods as an article of faith. There are probably even fewer who are truly 100% on the fence about all supernatural possibilities. If you regard a giant crab god whose only desire is that we drink lots of cocoa and read “O” magazine with complete neutrality, I commend your intellectual consistency and gladly call you agnostic.
I presumed that the list involved was hypothetical, and that it wasn’t limited by length or happening to think of the subject at the time. So, yes, on my list there would be a “I believe there are no flying unicorns on Uranus.” I didn’t contemplate the possibility for a moment that the elected public officials were asked to actually fill out a questionaire listing everything they believe, nor that you would decide someone was an atheist as a result of something that might simply be an omission.
What it means to “believe” in a proposition is a sticky question, regardless. Either way, atheism is the positive affirmation of a negative proposition, theism is the positive affirmation of the positive proposition in opposition to it, and agnosticism is the refusal to affirm either proposition. Three nice words, that cover everyone, and provide the maximum distinction possible with 3– I see no reason to reduce the language to two words because the people in one of those groups think it would be cool to absorb the other.
In the case of the representative, if he calls himself an atheist, I wouldn’t quarrel with him. Self-description is another way to use the words in a meaningful fashion
(Update: fixed, per the following comment. –arensb)
The word “admission” in the first paragraph was intended to be “omission.”
Paul:
Yes, the list is hypothetical and not limited by length. But the model I was using was one in which the brain starts as a tabula rasa and the list includes everything learned since infancy, including “fire is hot”, “houses are larger than people”, “Hillary Clinton would not make a good president”, etc. In this model, your list would not include “there are no flying unicorns on Uranus” before you had had a chance to think about it. And now that you mention it, I suspect that a neurologist would find my model comically wrong. Which brings us to:
You’re quite correct, and this may be a sticking point in this discussion.
One practical way to define belief is to say that person believes a proposition to be true if he or she acts in the manner which would be expected if the proposition were true, or likely true. By this criterion, we both believe that matter is solid (since we walk, fully confident that we won’t suddenly fall through the floor), and neither one of us believes Troublesome Frog’s proposition that there is a giant crab god who wants us to drink lots of cocoa.
Now consider two people: person A has thoughtfully considered the evidence and come to the conclusion that there is no giant crab god who wants him to drink cocoa every day. Person B has never heard of this idea. Both people behave the same way: they don’t drink a lot of cocoa. By your definition, person A holds a positive belief that there is no crab god, and is therefore an a-crab-god-ist; the second person is merely crab-god-agnostic. But since both behave the same way, there ought to be a common term to describe them both, otherwise the terms “a-crab-god-ist” and “crab-god-agnostic” are useless from a practical standpoint.
Why should more conventional deities be different? Are you agnostic about the thousands of gods people have invented that you’ve never heard of? They affect your behavior as much as Ahura-Mazda, Demeter, Quetzalcoatl, and the hundreds or thousands of deities you have heard of and rejected. (Of course, one might argue that the word “atheist” exists because the vast majority of people have been exposed to the notion of a god, and that therefore atheism is usually a conscious departure from the norm. A civilization that had never discovered alcohol probably wouldn’t have a word for “teetotaler”.)
One could make the case that walking across the room is an affirmation of the proposition “air is not solid”, but in that case, isn’t living as though there are no gods also an affirmation of the proposition, “there are no gods”?
There’s also the question of the degree of certainty. Consider, for instance, the section of Richard Dawkins’s book The God Delusion entitled
(emphasis added). He makes the case that while one cannot disprove the existence of God 100%, the probability of there being a god is so low as to be negligible. (This is a fairly common attitude, in my experience, and Troublesome Frog seems to agree.)Given this, if Dawkins had not identified himself as an atheist, would you call him an atheist or an agnostic? Intuitively, it seems silly to call him an agnostic, since “there almost certainly is no god” is close enough to “there is no god” for all practical purposes. So perhaps the line ought to be drawn at the point where a person starts hedging their bets, e.g., avoiding misusing the name “Jehovah” just in case he exists.
That give us three categories: people who behave as though there is a god, people who behave as though there are no gods, and people who aren’t sure. That seems to be a useful division, though as far as I can tell, people who have no god-belief fall into the same category as the outright atheists.
Troublesome Frog:
Just out of curiosity, did you take your name from the programming problem about frogs hopping across rice paddies and squishing the plants?
arensb:
Yes, actually I did. Congratulations on being the first person to ask that. I just remember reading the problem description and thinking what a shame it would be if that name wasn’t used for other things. There was something perfect about it. I suppose the other option would have been “dining philosopher” but the probability of a name collision seemed way too high.
I think that most people probably just think I’m a really irritating French guy. In reality, I’m just a giant crab who thinks that people should drink more cocoa.
Troublesome Frog:
Blake Stacey seems to leave comments all over the blogosphere. Maybe he can be the Traveling Salesman. Then you and he could get together for dinner and call it Dining Philosophers.
These comments have been pretty amusing. IF christians during non christian rome were called atheists it was because not that they believed that the roman gods did not exist but they had no belief in them.
A gnostic is someone who says they have knowledge of deity. Agnostic coined in the 1800s as a term to say we have no knowledge of deity. That our understanding is limited and that we could never possess this knowledge. They as well ripped the christian bible apart for it says it has knowledge of deity.
So: gnostic = knowledge of deity.
agnostic = no knowledge of deity.
Those agnostics are more akin to atheists today than current agnostics are who pretend like they are fence sitters etc and possibly closet theists. The “a” is the same for atheist. What we have is a religious world who has defined the word and continues to want to define the word to her liking. At one time it meant an immoral person.
theist = belief in deity
atheist = no belief in deity
People like to slip that “a” in front of deity to read belief in no deity. It is simply lacks belief in any deity. Note where the no is for agnostic. It does not mean knowledge of no deity. The no for atheist should be in the same place.
What I wish people would stop trying to do is say atheists are a religion for what exactly is atheism? One can be a theist and still support evolution. Many of the social tenets that atheists support are ones that theists support as well. No one worships science. It seems there still exists bigotry against the word as if it is evil in of itself. We are all born with no knowledge of deity and no belief in any. We have to be conditioned to believe in them. It seems like it is more socially acceptable to say one is an agnostic because people have changed the term to mean fence sitter than to state one is an atheist. One does not have to state one is either of them to be either of them as well. So there is nothing wrong with a baby being both. This is something that theists simply cannot live with since the world has been dominated by theism since we picked up sticks and started beating each other with them.